Vaccine

I can't believe you are so far down the mask hole that you can't even realizing that what you are saying by leveling this criticism is that masks are more effective tool than sick/symptomatic people, you know, staying home.
Who said I have to pick just one?

You are putting forward two, non mutually exclusive strategies.

1- stay at home if you display any of the following symptoms….
2- wear a mask when indoors or near others.

Ok. I choose both. Those are two good ideas. Along those lines:

3- get vaccinated.
4- stay outside for social gatherings.
5- avoid unnecessary travel.

I feel like I am rewriting the CDC advice for you. Do I need to remind you that doing item 7 on their list does not mean that you can skip item 5?
 
the causal element”? Why would I assume that the explanations are mutually exclusive?…

…One does not preclude the other. She should not have gone to work with allergies AND she should not have taken off her mask.

*Sigh*

Because the cause is going to work sick. Without that cause, the mask and ‘plumes’ are irrelevant. You know, a causal relationship.

If p, then q.

You can play with the contrapositive if you like

If not q, then not p. Do the implications of that with your AND operational hold to your narrative?

If kids don’t get sick, then not wearing a mask AND not going to work sick is the reason…. Oopps
 
*Sigh*

Because the cause is going to work sick. Without that cause, the mask and ‘plumes’ are irrelevant. You know, a causal relationship.

If p, then q.

You can play with the contrapositive if you like

If not q, then not p. Do the implications of that with your AND operational hold to your narrative?

If kids don’t get sick, then not wearing a mask AND not going to work sick is the reason…. Oopps
It sort of depends on how good you think your neighbor is at identifying when he is beginning to get sick. So far, I think we stink at it.

If you can convince everyone to stop ignoring mild flu symptoms, more power to you.

But, until then, I want a backup plan.
 
Who said I have to pick just one?

You are putting forward two, non mutually exclusive strategies.

1- stay at home if you display any of the following symptoms….
2- wear a mask when indoors or near others.

Ok. I choose both. Those are two good ideas. Along those lines:

3- get vaccinated.
4- stay outside for social gatherings.
5- avoid unnecessary travel.

I feel like I am rewriting the CDC advice for you. Do I need to remind you that doing item 7 on their list does not mean that you can skip item 5?

Again the implication you challenged was which was is more effective.

And if you go with the England approach, you want 3 (for those that haven't had it yet) but otherwise1-5 are contraindicated.
 
It's more about taking advantage of polarization so that information that has intrinsic uncertainty can be distorted to be either true or false, black or white, supportive of position A or position B. It is then simply plugged into the increasingly incompatible views of the world that we have already come to believe. Science is really just about finding tenable solutions to increasing complex problems. My sink is backed up, where's the clog? That's science. It's just information. It's not meant to be an abitrator of truth or lies. For example, I find it remarkable that a relatively small cohort study out of Isreal uploaded to a preprint service about a week ago has already been linked-just on our small soccer forum site-three times, apparently without people realizing they are linking the same study. It just shows up in their feed or something I guess. As I posted in my critique of it, the conclusions of that study are narrowly focused and based on ~250 cases out of ~65,000 individual studied. A central message is that, regardless of viral or vaccine immune priming, infections with delta in both the Israeli cohorts were rare. However, because of the way the cases binned between the cohorts-which could either be an artifact or informative-the study shows up supporting something like (from this morning) "new research found that natural immunity offers exponentially more protection than COVID-19 vaccines", or, if phrased in a more nuanced way, the protection of vaccines is waning. When in reality the study, if it shows anything, the study shows that the vaccines are holding up well with perhaps a decline is a very small set of people. And it is unfortunate, in my view, that Science chose to amplify such a piece, which has also been linked on this site. Once directly and once indirectly through a double click that incorrectly attributed it to Scientific American. So, somewhere, somebody is taking the trouble to find this stuff and mis-frame it in specific ways.



The republic has had issues from the beginning and it's true we largely got to this point on our own. But the process is also being abetted. If we prove incapable of managing our affairs, alternatives will arise spontaneously or be imposed upon us.

I could be wrong. Maybe we are all just arguing like old married people. But it feels different.
But not quite Aussie-ish at the moment.
 
Who said I have to pick just one?

You are putting forward two, non mutually exclusive strategies.

1- stay at home if you display any of the following symptoms….
2- wear a mask when indoors or near others.

Ok. I choose both. Those are two good ideas. Along those lines:

3- get vaccinated.
4- stay outside for social gatherings.
5- avoid unnecessary travel.

I feel like I am rewriting the CDC advice for you. Do I need to remind you that doing item 7 on their list does not mean that you can skip item 5?

Easy to understand, easy to follow...common sense.
 
Funny how that works.

That is essentially what a lot of people (scientists as well) have advocated from the start. That is protect the vulnerable if possible and let the rest of people live their life. Restrictions don't work.

It is only taking 20 or so months for more and more people/countries to come across this rather obvious realization.

Great Barrington Declaration

As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.


The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.
Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.
Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.
On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.
Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.
 
Co-signers
Medical and Public Health Scientists and Medical Practitioners
Dr. Alexander Walker
, principal at World Health Information Science Consultants, former Chair of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, USA
Dr. Andrius Kavaliunas
, epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Dr. Angus Dalgleish
, oncologist, infectious disease expert and professor, St. George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, England
Dr. Anthony J Brookes, professor of genetics, University of Leicester, England
Dr. Annie Janvier, professor of pediatrics and clinical ethics, Université de Montréal and Sainte-Justine University Medical Centre, Canada
Dr. Ariel Munitz, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Boris Kotchoubey, Institute for Medical Psychology, University of Tübingen, Germany
Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics, expert on vaccine development, efficacy, and safety. Tufts University School of Medicine, USA
Dr. David Katz, physician and president, True Health Initiative, and founder of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USA
Dr. David Livermore, microbiologist, infectious disease epidemiologist and professor, University of East Anglia, England
Dr. Eitan Friedman, professor of medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology, head of the Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham, England
Dr. Eyal Shahar, physician, epidemiologist and professor (emeritus) of public health, University of Arizona, USA
Dr. Florian Limbourg, physician and hypertension researcher, professor at Hannover Medical School, Germany
Dr. Gabriela Gomes, mathematician studying infectious disease epidemiology, professor, University of Strathclyde, Scotland
Dr. Gerhard Krönke, physician and professor of translational immunology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany
Dr. Gesine Weckmann, professor of health education and prevention, Europäische Fachhochschule, Rostock, Germany
Dr. Günter Kampf, associate professor, Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Greifswald University, Germany
Dr. Helen Colhoun, professor of medical informatics and epidemiology, and public health physician, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Dr. Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden
Dr. Karol Sikora, physician, oncologist, and professor of medicine at the University of Buckingham, England
Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science, Stanford University Medical School, USA
Dr. Lisa White, professor of modelling and epidemiology, Oxford University, England
Dr. Mario Recker, malaria researcher and associate professor, University of Exeter, England
Dr. Matthew Ratcliffe, professor of philosophy, specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, England
Dr. Matthew Strauss, critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine, Queen’s University, Canada
Dr. Michael Jackson, research fellow, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Dr. Michael Levitt, biophysicist and professor of structural biology, Stanford University, USA.
Recipient of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Dr. Mike Hulme, professor of human geography, University of Cambridge, England
Dr. Motti Gerlic, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Partha P. Majumder, professor and founder of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, India
Dr. Paul McKeigue, physician, disease modeler and professor of epidemiology and public health, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, physician, epidemiologist and public policy expert at the Veterans Administration, USA
Dr. Rodney Sturdivant, infectious disease scientist and associate professor of biostatistics, Baylor University, USA
Dr. Salmaan Keshavjee, professor of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School, USA
Dr. Simon Thornley, epidemiologist and biostatistician, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Dr. Simon Wood, biostatistician and professor, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Dr. Stephen Bremner,professor of medical statistics, University of Sussex, England
Dr. Sylvia Fogel, autism provider and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA
Tom Nicholson, Associate in Research, Duke Center for International Development, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, USA
Dr. Udi Qimron, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer, professor and expert in virology, immunology and cell biology, University of Würzburg, Germany
Dr. Uri Gavish, biomedical consultant, Israel
Dr. Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu, professor of finance, director of the Behavioural Finance Working Group, Queen Mary University of London, England
 
Just in case you "one size fits all folks" think that your kind has not been wrong before:

… is from pages 162-163 of F.A. Hayek’s profound 1952 book The Counter-Revolution of Science, as this book appears as part of volume 13 (Studies on the Abuse & Decline of Reason, Bruce Caldwell, ed. [2010]) of the Collected Works of F.A. Hayek:

images-1-2.jpeg

The problem of securing an efficient use of our resources is thus very largely one of how that knowledge of the particular circumstances of the moment can be most effectively utilised; and the task which faces the designer of a rational order of society is to find a method whereby this widely dispersed knowledge may best be drawn upon. It is begging the question to describe the task, as is usually done, as one of effectively using the ‘available’ resources to satisfy ‘existing’ needs. Neither the ‘available’ resources nor the ‘existing’ needs are objective facts in the sense of those with which the engineer deals in his limited field: they can never be directly known in all relevant detail to a single planning body. Resources and needs exist for practical purposes only through somebody knowing about them, and there will always be infinitely more known to all the people together than can be known to the most competent authority….

It is important to remember in this connection that the statistical aggregates, upon which it is often suggested, the central authority could rely in its decisions, are always arrived at by a deliberate disregard of the peculiar circumstances of time and place.


DBx: Hayek here summarizes his justly famous criticism, elaborated in his September 1945 American Economic Review paper, “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” of that conception of ‘the economic problem’ in which all the countless human preferences competing for satisfaction, as well as all the available means and their relative availabilities, are “given” facts that, at least in principle, can be known and processed by a single mind.

Every person who proposes to arrange to better satisfy human desires by obstructing the competitive price-system’s process of allocating resources must answer this question: How, exactly, will the authority charged with forcibly obstructing the market process acquire the knowledge that that authority must acquire if the allocation of resources that it brings about will indeed be one that better satisfies human desires?

That an advocate of obstructing market processes can explain how some market intervention will better satisfy the preferences of a particular favored group is incontestable, just as it’s incontestable that if I’m allowed to rob you I’m made better off. What must instead be explained is how the proposed market intervention will yield a use of resources that increases the likelihood that any randomly chosen person in the affected society will over time be better able to satisfy his or her consumption preferences – will, in short, have a higher standard of living.

No advocate of obstructing market processes has yet explained how the central authority that is necessary to carry out the intervention will acquire this knowledge. Typically, this ‘knowledge problem’ is not even recognized. And when it is recognized, it’s dismissed – usually blithely – as one that can be overcome with the growth in computing power or with the improvement in statistical methods (or, usually, both).

But these dismissals arise from an utter failure to understand the kinds of knowledge that create the ‘knowledge problem.’ This knowledge is necessarily widely dispersed across millions of different minds; it’s typically very localized (such as what are the options available to deal with the fact that a machine in some factory in Birmingham, Alabama, just broke down); is constantly changing; and is often in internal conflict (as when a merchant believes herself to have found a profitable opportunity to sell electrical wiring to a factory not knowing that a cargo ship carrying the electrical wiring is delayed). And never mind knowledge of the subjective consumption preferences of each of the hundreds of millions of people.

From advocates of full-on socialism to advocates of industrial policy to advocates of using a handful of protective tariffs and subsidies, all as a means of improving the performance of the national economy, this ‘knowledge problem’ looms. To be taken seriously, they must offer a compelling explanation of how the market-intervening authority will acquire this knowledge of time, place, and circumstance. To date, they haven’t come close to meeting this requirement.
 
Granted.

But here's how far down the rabbit hole you are. I don't even remember which post you are talking about nor do I really care (the system doesn't allow you to upvote parts and downvote others of a post). But you are monitoring who is giving thumbs up to who. Here's another little tid bit to blow your mind: who are your most vehement supporters? How do you feel about the company you keep?

@Grace T. and you think the company you keep is an intellectual powerhouse? Give me a break. You're siding with the Alex Jones fanboys.

I can't stop laughing.....
 
As Delta Variant Surges, College Tightens Covid Rules in Spite of Student Protests

Amid concerns surrounding the Delta variant of Covid-19, the college announced on Tuesday that it has tightened its public health rules for the first two and a half weeks of the fall semester. The announcement has generated backlash among students who say the new rules are too restrictive.


As the Delta variant continues to plague the nation, the college announced on Tuesday that it has tightened its public health precautions for the first two and a half weeks of the Fall 2021 semester (from move-in to Sept. 13). The restrictions include: indoor double-mask mandates, two Covid tests upon arrival, a bi-weekly testing requirement, limits on indoor gathering sizes, off-campus travel restrictions and an elimination of in-person dining services.

These restrictions were put into place on Aug. 24, and represented an increase from the rules outlined in a previous announcement made eight days prior. The new protocols caused significant student backlash, including an open letter signed by over 250 students asking the administration to reconsider the changes.

Last spring, the college announced that all students, faculty and staff must be fully vaccinated to return to campus, with exceptions granted only on medical or religious grounds. Students must verify their vaccination status on the student health portal prior to arriving.
 
Duke sets new campus restrictions after rise in COVID cases among vaccinated students
BY KATE MURPHY UPDATED AUGUST 31, 2021 02:35 PM


Duke University has set new restrictions to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 as cases are rising on the Durham campus despite its vaccine mandate.

In the first week of classes, 304 undergraduates, 45 graduate students and 15 employees tested positive for COVID-19. All but eight of these individuals were vaccinated, and the vast majority of them are asymptomatic. A small number have minor, cold- and flu-like symptoms, and none have been hospitalized, according to the university.

The tyranny of tiny risk
 
Zero-Covid is wishful thinking if Australia wants to rejoin the world
30 August 2021, 5:47am


Some of Sydney and all of Melbourne are under night-time curfew – something that has never occurred in Australia before, even under threat of Japanese invasion in 1942.

On Wednesday last week, Australian daily positives topped 1,000 for the first time – 1/36 of the British tally for the same day with a population two-fifths of Britain’s – for the first time in the eighteen months of this pandemic. Yet these small numbers are a major health crisis in Australia, showing how over-reactive, defensive, and frightened most Australians are when it comes to this virus.
 
No Liberty? No Problem

Australians shrug at their government’s draconian pandemic response.

Arthur Chrenkoff August 30, 2021



The success in suppressing Covid comes with other price tags. The single-minded obsession that no one get sick and die from Covid is being paid for by a slowly unfolding mental-health crisis. Social isolation and dislocation are taking their toll in terms of rising suicide, depression, substance abuse, and domestic violence. Physical health suffers, too, as treatable conditions don’t get treated in the health system that now seems to have only one goal.
 
@Grace T. and you think the company you keep is an intellectual powerhouse? Give me a break. You're siding with the Alex Jones fanboys.

I can't stop laughing.....
[/QUOTE]
Your elitist disdain is showing. Still assuming arguendo it’s even true, I’d take gentlemen like bruddah and crush any day of the week over busker and espola

Most of us have doppelgängers here in the off topic thread. Even I had one for a little bit which sadly seems to have gone away. I still miss the hatter too. Your last sentence gives me an idea of yours. Are you a fan of any obscure bands?
 
Back
Top